Dismissed

M. Manobala v. C.J.Jayakumar and 2 Others

Madras HC3 Jan 2020A/9711/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application seeking to condone a 146-day delay in filing a written statement. It held that delay cannot be condoned and treated earlier counter-affidavits as a valid defense to be considered at final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Application to condone delay in filing the written statement dismissed. Counter-affidavits to be considered at final disposal.

M. Manobala Vs C.J.Jayakumar and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

A.No.9711 of 2019 in C.S. No.373 of 2019

¶7

In the matter of Copy Right Act, 1957 and In the matter of Tamil Film titled "SADURANGAVETTAI-2"

¶8

C.J.Jayakumar, Proprietor of Cameo Films, having Office at No.59, Vijayaraghava Road, T-Nagar, Chennai – 17. ... Plaintiff -Versus-

¶9

1.K.Gangatharan, Proprietor of Cinema City, No.2, Venkatesh Nagar Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092.

¶10

2.M.Manobala, Proprietor of Picture House, No.9/17-S3, 3^rd Floor, Neelakanda Metha Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. 3.Tamil Film Producers Council, Represented by its President, No.606, Anna Salai, Film Chamber Compound, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

4.Chennai, Kanchipuram Tiruvallore, Film Distributors Association, Represented by its President, 23, Meeran Sahib Street, Anna Salai, Thiruvallikeni, Chennai – 600 002. ... Defendants

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

¶14

A.No.9711 of 2019:-

¶15

M.Manobala, Proprietor of Picture House, No.9/17-S3, 3^rd Floor, Neelakanda Metha Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ..Applicant -Versus-

¶16

1.C.J.Jayakumar, Proprietor of Cameo Films, having Office at No.59, Vijayaraghava Road, T-Nagar, Chennai – 17. 2.K.Gangadharan, Proprietor of Cinema City, No.2, Venkatesh Nagar Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092. 3.Tamil Film Producers Council, Represented by its President, No.606, Anna Salai, Film Chamber Compound, Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondents

¶17

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 146 days in filing the Written Statement of the Applicant/2^nd Defendant in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.373 of 2019.

¶18

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing, the Court made the following order:-

¶19

This application is filed to condone the delay of 146 days in filing the written statement of the applicant/2nd defendant in the suit.

¶20

2.The dispute falls under the definition of Commercial dispute as per the Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, the defendants are bound to file written statement within 30 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ days from the date of receipt of the suit summon and further period of 90 days is permitted with condone delay

¶21

¶22

application properly explaining reason for the delay.

¶23

3.In this case, the written statement is filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute. Hence, this application to condone the delay of 146 days cannot be entertained. The 2nd defendant is already fortified in filing the written statement.

¶24

4.However, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/2nd defendant submits that in O.A.Nos.603 and 4119 of 2019, the 2nd defendant/applicant herein has filed counter which may be taken as defence at the time of final disposal.

¶25

5.At his request, the said counter will be duly considered at the time of final disposal. Accordingly, this application to condone the delay of 146 days in filing the written statement of the 2nd defendant/applicant herein is dismissed.

¶26

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2020. JJ 08/01/2020

¶27

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶28

From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Manobala v. C.J.Jayakumar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Manobala v. C.J.Jayakumar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sruthis Food Products Vs Mr.a.D.Padmasingh Isaac and Another

M/S.Common Man Presents Vs C.P.Sunil Raj and another

Radha Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Koyyah Sons Pte Limited and Another

Desert Valley Medical Inc. Vs a.Jayachadra Reddy

Mrs. Rukmani Devi Vs M/s. Future E State Property

Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited